TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2023 (9) TMI 1094
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... civil structures and roads. A show cause notice dated 20.10.2010 was issued to the Appellant on the basis of an investigation conducted by the officers of DGCEI, Kolkata, demanding service tax of Rs.5,24,85,909/- along with interest and penalty. The Notice was adjudicated by the Commissioner Service Tax vide Order-in-Original dated 29.02.2012, wherein the Service tax of Rs.2,36,31,139/- including Education Cess was confirmed along with interest and the remaining demands made in the Notice was dropped. Penalty equal to service tax confirmed was also imposed under Section 78 of the Finance Act, 1994. Rs.5000/- was imposed under Section 77 of the Act, on the Appellant. Aggrieved against the impugned order, the Appellant has filed the present ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Highway was provided to National Highway Authority of India, which is a statutory body under Ministry of Shipping, Road Transport & Highway. Out of the total demand of Rs.2,36,31,139/- confirmed in the impugned order Rs.2,17,05,694/- pertains to the services of management, maintenance and repair of roads . They contended that Service Tax on activity of management, maintenance and repairs of roads has been exempted retrospectively for the period 16.06.2005 to 26.07.2009, by insertion of Section 97 in the Finance Act, 1994 by the Finance Act, 2012. They stated that various decisions given by the Tribunals dropped the demands of service tax on maintenance of roads. Reliance has been placed on the decision made by CESTAT in the case of Anand As....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... belong to the firm. It was jointly owned by him and his brother. The Appellant received rent towards his share of the rent on the property. As the rent received was well within the exemption limit, no service tax was payable. 9. In view of the above submissions, they submitted that the demands confirmed in the impugned order is not sustainable. 10. The Ld.A.R. reiterated the findings in the impugned order. 11. Heard both sides and perused the appeal records. 12. We observe that the impugned order has confirmed service tax of Rs.2,36,31,139/- including Education Cess, along with interest and Penalty. The demands confirmed can be categorized under the following headings: (i) Service tax on Maintenance and repair of roads....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....28.05.2012, providing special exemption to the management, maintenance or repair of roads. Such exemption has been specifically provided to the service provided between 16th June, 2005 to 26th July, 2009. In view of the amended provision made applicable with retrospective effect, we hold that the demand of service tax of Rs. 2,17,05,694/-confirmed in the impugned order is not sustainable. 15. Regarding demand of service tax of Rs. 14,86,562 on construction service rendered to HUDCO , we find that the Appellant has constructed Office building for HUDCO at D.J. Block, Salt Lake, for their own use. During the relevant period, service tax was chargeable on construction services when the building is used for commercial and industrial purpose.....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... for the upliftment of society and for urban development of the country. Hence the office building constructed for HUDCO cannot be considered for industrial or commercial purpose. As the building is used by HUDCO for official purpose it cannot be equated with a building for commercial, trade and industry. Accordingly, we hold that the demand of service tax of Rs. 14,86,562/-confirmed in the impugned order is not sustainable. 18. Regarding the demand of service tax of Rs. 3,99,282/-on hiring of machinery, we observe that the Appellant has claimed that the machinery was supplied with rights of possession and effective control thereof and hence it would not fall under the taxable service of 'Supply of tangible goods. However, we observe tha....